The code is not the phrases themselves. It is a complex code, where you have to either make a grid of all the letters in a chapters, and then apply a
mathematical solution... It seems it's only doable with a computer, and only if you know the combination.

The code is not the phrases themselves. It is a complex code, where you have to either make a grid of all the letters in a chapters, and then apply a
mathematical solution... It seems it's only doable with a computer, and only if you know the combination.

So..you are saying the bible was just waiting for computers to be invented, for us to know the *real* message of God.....

The Bible contains a code, that can predict everything, including things from the past. Harvard scientists discovered it. A human can't write a code
that can be read with billions of combinations. If yes, it was a real damn good human!

Unfortunately, that is the belief of people who don't understand complex math and statistical analysis.

The Bible Code has been debunked several times over as a statistical anomaly that doesn't hold up and was not "discovered" by Harvard scientists,
it was based on a book written by Michael Drosnin called, wait for it... "The Bible Code".

You can do the same type of manipulation with Moby Dick or Atlas Shrugged and find things that will raise an eyebrow or two, but that does not mean
they were written by God. Equidistant letter sequences can be found in any written book and does not prove anything other than statistics work.

Sorry, but you shouldn't put all of your eggs into a fruit-colored basket filled with nuts.

I must say, as much as I love hearing about secret societies (in fact, that's why I joined ATS), I am highly suspicious of this thread. I would
prefer a bit more supporting evidence (links to sites that show more research, etc.) and a lot less theorizing.

I must say, as much as I love hearing about secret societies (in fact, that's why I joined ATS), I am highly suspicious of this thread. I would prefer
a bit more supporting evidence (links to sites that show more research, etc.) and a lot less theorizing.

How long can you hold your breath...even Houdini would have died waiting for what you ask...

Also to add, that the KJV of the Bible was named after a pagan deity called 'Byble or Byblis". And King James also renamed a book in the New
testament from Jacob or Ya'aqob to James from its original translation to 'honor' king james in his rewriting.

Now the NIV, RSV, and NLT are probably the worst of translations of Scripture. KJV if not the best of the worst of them, is what still is used by the
Majority Text.

Rapture doctrine is Christian pagan theology that doesnt exist. You can read the KJV and not read a rapture there anywhere. Its a bunch of made up
mess. And also the trinity doctrine is another form of paganism that came from the Roman Empire into the Catholic church, which is now being preached
in Christian churches as 'the truth' and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. But that is wrong also.

But, the original New Testament which was in Hebrew has been somehow been 'removed' from the public has most of our answers. The Sanhedrin who then
had ownership of the sacred texts of Hebrew, rewrote them in Greek and I dont know what happened to the originals.

But as for the truth, the KJV has it there. He may have been a mason, and part of the illuminati, but so called contradictions in Scripture are
contradictions to stupid people who do fully understand how to rightly divide scripture.

The academics are under the influence of the government and Illuminati; i will certainly not believe in THEM.

I am certainly not under any such influence, and under most circumstances and circles, you would call me an academic if you knew me and my
background.

I'm not saying that there aren't influences like that out there, but you can't paint everyone that is intelligent with the "controlled by
illuminati or THEM brush".

I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else, just trying to help bring an understanding to things that you might not have due to not having enough
facts. If this was my opinion, I would say so, but having an understanding of complex mathematical algorithms provides me with enough factual evidence
to state what I'm saying as more than theory.

Not really. All I'm really looking for is more than what seems like 5 minutes worth of research and then 30 minutes of theorizing. I want the focus
to be more on the research done than the theory. Simply a personal viewpoint, but I was rather unimpressed. I'm usually more impressed when reading
about a great deal of research, and then a brief theory, rather than the other way around.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.